maybe the SuperTopo webmaster can put together a form that asks a bunch of questions about your climbing history and then a rating for the climbs....
...anonomous of course...
...and keeping track of the climbs you rate forms an overall opinion about the rating of the climbs.

As far as I know, when ever I rate a new climb I have to think of all the other climbs I've done, and try to puzzle out what moves match... then I come up with a rating. Usually Eric says something like..."naw, we can't climb that hard, it's 5.9" (which solves the mystery of why so many hard climbs are rated 5.9 as far as I'm concerned).

Climbs are not rated by climber consensus... and since the ratings are subjective, and the techniques are hard to cross rate, there is no hope to arrive at a true "standard". In some ways the British adjective system was the best, since there was no chance at all at being mistaken for an objective grade, 'very hard', 'really very hard', 'extremely hard, really', 'kind of difficult'... etc.

Not to mention the fact that some days, the gravitational constant really does seem a lot larger than usual, and the coefficient of friction starts to equal the coefficient of fiction, always a bad sign.

I abide by the old ratings because of the history, those are the ratings that the FA gave the climbs. So little is left of the climbs after the years that we owe, just out of respect and fondness, them the honor of messing us up for all time. Next thing you know we'll be changing the route names (oops, I guess that already happened), and deciding that the people reportedly on the FA didn't deserve to be...

The only way to change the ratings is to introduce an entirely new system, and a body to regulate the rating of climbs, sort of patterned after the Académie française, the body that oversees the French language. Climbers would go through the process of submitting climbing ratings to the regulatory body, a process of vetting the proposed rating, and perhaps deciding on the name too, which results after much considered deliberation on approval or not. In the mean time, climbers would describe the difficulties as "moderate, sort of like this or that climb... bring some small gear for the crux, it's not too bad though".

If not approved, the FA can resubmit the application, after demonstrating that they had addressed the negative points made by the various committees and reviewers.

By the way, the académie started putting a dictionary of the French language together in the 18th century, and abandoned the effort not being able to decide on the words starting with A... you can see the devilish guile such a system would have on the ratings.

Ed wrote:
"The only way to change the ratings is to introduce an entirely new system, and a body to regulate the rating of climbs, sort of patterned after the Académie française, the body that oversees the French language."

Well it ain't the Only way cause really, you just have to put out a new guidebook with different ratings.

Check out the difference between the Reid ratings for the pitches of the DNB and the Supertopo ratings. Don't tell me you think the Reid ratings are correct unless you've done the route in the past 8 years or so. Memory of grip and pain tends to fade in time

In my mind the hardest climb on that list is without a doubt, Abstract Corner. Us Uplanders (Ricky Accomazzo, Richard Harrison and I) did the second lead of that thing (I think in '73) and a hold broke off, making the opening few body lengths off the ledge quite possibly 5.12. Curious if anyone else has been up there in the last few decades. That might be Bridwell's hardest Yosemit free climb.

Ed Hartouni Said:
"The only way to change the ratings is to introduce an entirely new system, and a body to regulate the rating of climbs, sort of patterned after the Académie française, the body that oversees the French language."

Ed, we do have a regulatory body.
They are duly assembled on the Reardon thread!
Bwahahahaha.

Grades at Squamish, which I'm most familiar with, are sometimes a bit soft. Routes often meet the technical grade, but aren't very sustained or strenuous. My comments allow for that.

Also, any Valley route done in the 1960s, graded 5.9 then, and still graded 5.9, is usually a pretty good workout. Especially longer routes. The Northeast Buttress of Higher Cathedral is an example - probably none of the moves is much more than 5.9, but overall it's a fair effort. I wonder what it would be graded if done anew? Although, as KB mentions, it would be revisionism if not heresy to re-grade such classics.